Standing Committee B

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Children Bill [Lords]

Joe Benton: Before we commence, I have briefly to announce that, in accordance with requests, copies of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child are available on the Table.

Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. May I ask whether you anticipate allowing a short stand part debate on clause 2? Many Opposition Members would be prepared to speed up our debates on some of the amendments if we had the opportunity to say why we shall then vote against the clause.

Joe Benton: The convention is that it depends on the course of discussions on amendments to the clause. When it comes to putting the question on clause stand part, much will depend on what has transpired beforehand. I see no problem if people keep to the amendments and do not debate the broad substance of the clause.
 The other point I want to make is that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) has informed me that he is sick. His is the lead name on a number of amendments to clause 4, so I thought it right to explain his absence.

Clause 2 - Membership of the Commission

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (7).

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 130, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 32, after 'is', insert 'desirous of but'. 
No. 131, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert— 
 '(7A) Nothing in subsection (7) shall permit assistance to be provided in actions against a responsible adult. 
 (7B) For the purposes of this Part, ''responsible adult'' includes— 
 (a) a person having parental responsibility for that child; 
 (b) a teacher of the child; 
 (c) any other employee of the child's school; 
 (d) a person working, whether as a volunteer or employee, for any voluntary organisation of which the child is a member; 
 (e) the child's social worker; or 
 (f) such other natural person in a class designated by order, subject to the negative resolution procedure, by the Secretary of State.'.

Margaret Hodge: I tabled amendment No. 1, to delete subsection (7), which would empower the commissioner to provide assistance to a child to bring legal proceedings. The subsection is the result of an Opposition amendment tabled in the other place.
 We have had a lot of discussion on the issue, Mr. Benton, and you will know that we want the commissioner to have a strategic role in achieving the outcomes that children have defined as important to them, and in ensuring that the system works for children as a whole, rather than making the commissioner spend time on individual cases. 
 I assure those members of the Committee who may be concerned about what it will mean for individual children that a range of bodies can already provide representation for children, including the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The Official Solicitor also provides support for children. It makes no sense to duplicate those roles. Deleting subsection (7) does not prevent the commissioner, if called on, from acting as a witness in court proceedings. As part of his general clause 2 functions, he will still be able to look into complaints to ensure that the systems work effectively and are child-friendly. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) tabled amendments Nos. 130 and 131, but I hope that he will agree that if our amendment is adopted his will become unnecessary.

Tim Loughton: May I correct the Minister on one thing? I tabled the amendment, and she has hijacked it. It has never happened to me before. Government amendment No. 1, and several others that my hon. Friends and I tabled within minutes of Second Reading now magically have her name at the top. I am delighted to do all the hard work, and for her to take the credit. However, we may have different reasons for supporting the amendment.
 Subsection (7) came about as the result of a comprehensive, cross-party revision to clause 2 in the other place. I do not think that it was singled out as a particular addition, but it was agreed on all sides. However, it was added in the interests of putting together an all-encompassing alternative to the clause, to beef up the role of the commissioner—a matter on which we will continue to talk. 
 I have some problems with subsection (7), but for different reasons than the Minister. I originally tabled the amendment as a probing amendment. I do not seek to take away the right of children to be able to turn to the Children's Commissioner for legal redress as a last resort if their interests are not properly being taken into account—for instance, if a social worker has not been appointed to a looked-after child, or a child's educational entitlements are not being provided for. 
 The intention behind the subsection is that children whose rights and entitlements are being neglected can ask the commissioner to start legal action to institute those entitlements. That is absolutely right, and I have no problem with it. It will be of some reassurance if the Minister is saying that that can be provided by other means, although the mention of CAFCASS does not fill me with great confidence, as she knows. 
 I am concerned that the subsection could be used in a vexatious way by a young person seeking to cause annoyance to a parent or, more likely, a teacher. The child could seek legal redress through the commissioner to pursue an unjust legal case because of some vendetta. I am sure that it would happen only in extreme circumstances, but the wording of the subsection could give succour to a person wanting to bring such a vexatious complaint; it would entitle the child to the support and resources of the Children's Commissioner to undertake such action. 
 That is the only reason why I challenge the inclusion of subsection (7). I do it for different reasons than the Minister, but if she can give me some reassurance that that could not happen, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment—although I cannot, as it is now her amendment, and she will press on with it, which confuses the whole picture. 
 That is why I and my hon. Friends tabled the amendment, and I would be interested in the Minister's response.

Hilton Dawson: I am opposed to my right hon. Friend's proposal, for what I think are good reasons. I shall try out an example in order to hear her response.
 The Children's Commissioner will be undertaking all sorts of work on policy issues relating to children. My right hon. Friend suggested on Tuesday that it would be important to consider the position of young people in custody. The Bill already allows the commissioner to take up individual cases that raise issues of public policy. It already gives the commissioner the important opportunity to enter premises and talk to a child in private, if that is what the child wishes. It is therefore entirely possible that, when undertaking an inquiry into the position of children in prison, the commissioner will visit a young offenders institution. He may see a child in private and it may become plain that the child is suicidal. 
 I have it on good authority that there are suicidal and extremely distressed children in young offenders institutions as we sit here today, and the commissioner is highly likely to come across them. They have often not been well represented; their best interests have certainly not been taken into account in criminal justice proceedings, and there may well be a case for the commissioner to initiate urgent legal proceedings on behalf of individual children. The commissioner might want to seek an emergency protection order or judicial review, or instigate a review of a child's sentence. There may be many other avenues that he could pursue, and he would often want to do so in partnership with the child, the child's parents and legal advisers, CAFCASS and many other bodies. However, the commissioner will need a residual right to bring legal proceedings to assist that individual child in those individual circumstances. What my right hon. Friend suggests is not only a terrible diminution of the commissioner's powers, which the other place 
 wisely established in statute, but a dangerous step. At its heart, subsection (7) is a child protection measure, and we should keep it in the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I, too, rise to speak against the amendment. As Baroness Walmsley so forcefully said in the other place, subsection (7) is a measure of last resort, and we are talking, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said so movingly, about the most vulnerable children. The wording of the Bill may not be perfect, but the reference to situations
''where the child is unable to bring legal proceedings'' 
is fairly clear, and I cannot see it opening the floodgates to many individual cases. 
 On the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), we are all concerned about vexatious cases. As a former teacher, I am always distressed when people suggest bringing cases because GCSE results have not been as high as expected, but I do not think that we are talking about such cases. We are looking to appoint a special person with defined powers, and subsection (7) goes on to say that the commissioner may provide assistance where 
''it appears to the Commissioner reasonable to do so''. 
Will that wording not close the gate on vexatious complaints? If the Government do not think that it would be strong enough to do so, I would prefer them to consider strengthening it. 
 I can only emphasise that the safety net in subsection (7) is one of the most important in the Bill, particularly in the light of such tragic suicide cases. Such cases reflect on us all, given that they are happening in our secure institutions and other places. The words in the Bill may not be quite right and may need strengthening, but I urge the Government to remember that that safety net is very important.

Andrew Turner: I tabled amendments Nos. 130 and 131 because I wanted to introduce exactly the kind of additional clarity that the hon. Lady mentioned. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the clause is quite wide. I also broadly agree with the Minister: she says that there are additional means of redress for individuals in such circumstances, and there certainly may be. The problem, of course, is that such means of redress are sometimes not very quick. For example, taking a local authority to an ombudsman does not necessarily provide a remedy. In my constituency, an ombudsman case against the local authority was won by my constituents in the last century, and has still not been resolved by the local authority to the satisfaction of those residents.
 We are talking about children having access to an additional means of legal redress, but—and this is my concern—parents and professionals have a difficult job as it is, and I do not wish to see that job made more difficult. That is why I have tabled the amendments in such a form. Amendment No. 131 would prevent assistance being given in actions against individuals, while permitting actions against authorities—a 
 reasonable balance to draw. Amendment No. 130 states that the child has to be desirous of the course of action pursued, which is also a reasonable requirement.

Nick Palmer: I want to express some sympathy with the general objectives of the clause as it stands, although I plan to vote for the amendment. The difficulty seems to be that if we open the possibility of the commissioner intervening in individual cases in this way, we will not get the rapid response to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On the contrary, we will have to equip the commissioner with a large staff to deal with cases in a way that will duplicate the methods of other bodies, which would probably not be in the child's interests.
 I would have some sympathy with the provision of some kind of opportunity for the commissioner to intervene in cases where he or she considers it to be in the public interest and feels that there has been a systemic breakdown. However, I do not see that in the clause as it stands, and I plan to support the amendment.

Margaret Hodge: Let me deal with what the commissioner can do, because I hope that that will give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and others. The commissioner can and will look at complaints systems, so that if, in the course of his work, he finds that a particular system is not working in the interests of children in general—that will come out of specific cases—he can make appropriate recommendations. Where there is systemic failure, one would expect him to review the workings of a particular complaints mechanism.
 Listening hard to the views expressed by Members in the House of Lords, we introduced clause 4, which will give the commissioner the power to pursue an individual case where he believes that that case has wider public policy ramifications and to pursue it would not be duplicating work done elsewhere. In such particular instances, there are sufficient safeguards in the system so that if systems are failing, or a case emerges with wider public interests, the commissioner will be able to intervene. 
 I come to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). The matter goes to the heart of where we may disagree. We are establishing a commissioner whose prime purpose will be not the policing of individual complaints but to consider all areas of interest to children across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and central and local government, to see whether children's interests are promoted in relation to the five outcomes that we have translated into a legislative form in the Bill. 
 The commissioner is not a repository of last resort. We deliberately set the Bill up so that he or she did not fulfil that function. Again, I will take the hon. Lady's example of the suicide cases. The Bill's purpose is to provide what I describe as the legislative spine to ensure that those working with children work better 
 together around the needs of the child and intervene earlier. Time will tell how well the Bill and other reforms work, but if we are successful, one result will be fewer suicides and tragedies such as those that have occurred in the past. That is the purpose of what we are doing. It is a question not of investigating or acting when there have been suicides but of providing the infrastructure to ensure that they do not occur. 
 I want now to deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I recently visited Feltham because of a discussion about whether an additional service should be provided to the young offenders held there. The thing that struck me in my visit was that many of the young people there have a huge range of professionals concerned with them. Each young person probably has an educational welfare officer, because they have probably truanted. They may have a drug problem so someone from a drug action team may be working with them. Someone from the youth justice system will certainly work them, as might someone from the education service. They probably also have a social worker because they are in care or at risk or there is a potential for harm. 
 It is not a question of there not being sufficient professionals already working with such children with the purpose of protecting them and promoting their best interests. Adding yet another layer and yet another individual with those responsibilities will not improve the quality of the work that is undertaken by the existing professionals working with those young people. We should put our focus on the existing professionals to ensure that tragedies do not occur, not simply add another layer.

Hilton Dawson: I accept everything that my right hon. Friend says. Of course a wide variety of professionals work with young people in young offenders institutions. However, as she could check today with the chair of the Youth Justice Board, the fact is that some young people within the youth justice system fall into the gaps between the Prison Service, the health service and social services. There are exceptionally needy children in those situations, and they are precisely the children whose sometimes extremely complex needs are not met. That is why we need a power in the Bill as expressed in subsection (7).

Margaret Hodge: I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, but I disagree with that. The purpose of the powers that we are putting in clauses 7 and 8 is precisely to strengthen the co-operation between all the professionals working with children and young people and to strengthen the duties placed on them. It is that that should better prevent young people from falling through the net. It will not always do that, but it will work better than simply saying that there is final recourse to yet another system.

Andrew Turner: Is not the problem that so many professionals are involved but no individual takes responsibility? Is the right hon. Lady clear that an individual professional is taking lead responsibility for a child in such circumstances?

Margaret Hodge: There appears to be a consensus here. One problem is that in many past instances there has not been a lead professional. There are several elements of the reforms, and two are relevant in this case. First, we should try to develop a common assessment framework so that all professionals who work with a child or young person do so within the same context and with the same information—specialist information if necessary. Secondly, there ought to be a lead professional for each child or young person with needs. Those are two elements of our reform agenda that are not necessarily encompassed in legislation but that I have often spoken about in the past.
 We are discussing with local authorities and other agencies situations in which, as the hon. Gentleman said, it would be better to have a lead professional. I always give the example of a recent case when I visited in her home an eight or nine-year-old girl with severe physical disabilities. She was being educated in a mainstream school, and much of the system was working well for her, but her mother told me that she had had 18 separate assessments—18 different people had come to see her in the previous three months. The mother, who was her main carer, was spending more time managing the assessments and the professionals than focusing on the most important thing, which is supporting her young child.

Andrew Turner: I am very grateful for that response, but one problem is that that leadership role of a single individual is not, as the Minister says, in the Bill.

Margaret Hodge: It does not need to be.

Andrew Turner: I am clear that an individual can take responsibility despite the fact that it is not a legal requirement, but I am not sure how they can be required to do so.

Margaret Hodge: We are placing in the framework of the Bill duties to co-operate and to protect and safeguard. The Bill will also require local authorities to establish the new post of director of children's services to bring together services in local government that meet children's needs. We are developing a common assessment framework for those who work with children to use. When we—

Joe Benton: Order. I suggest to the Minister that we are moving into the territory of social services. Can I try and bring the debate back to subsection (7)?

Margaret Hodge: You are absolutely correct, Mr. Benton. I will be happy to pursue that conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside the Committee if he shows an interest.
 May I deal with the issue of vexatious complaints? One cannot assess what is a legitimate or a vexatious complaint until it has been made and considered. As hon. Members will be aware, if a complaint proves to be vexatious, it can be struck out during the complaints process or legal and judicial processes. There is no way of legislating to prevent vexatious complaints without intervening in the right of individuals to pursue complaints that could be 
 legitimate. In all instances, we are trying to find proper and appropriate support for professionals involved and to speed up the system so that distress and anxiety are mitigated as much as possible. It is difficult to balance the right of individuals to pursue complaints with the fact that a few individuals will abuse that right and pursue vexatious complaints. 
 I hope that the Government amendment can be agreed and the others can be left. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 173, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out 'rights and'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in
clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out from '1989' to end of line 43.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 8—Promotion of awareness of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child— 
 'Each Children's Service Authority in England must make arrangements to ensure that the principles and provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are widely known to— 
 (a) members and staff of the authority; 
 (b) members and staff of the authority's relevant partners; and 
 (c) all children and parents living within the authority's area.'. 
New clause 13—Consistency of legislation with the UNCRC and children's well-being— 
 '(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill— 
 (a) make a statement to the effect that the provisions of the Bill have been assessed for their compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and their contribution to the well-being of children, relating to the aspects specified in subsection (7)(a) to (e), and that, in his view, the provisions of the Bill do not act to the detriment of any child or group of children in respect of those aspects; and 
 (b) make available in each Library of the Houses of Parliament a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1)(a), or 
 (c) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement under subsection (1)(a) the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill. 
 (2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
 (3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the aspects of children's well-being are— 
 (a) physical and mental health; 
 (b) protection from harm and neglect; 
 (c) education training and recreation; 
 (d) the contribution made by them to society; 
 (e) emotional, social and economic well-being.'. 
New clause 15—Children's services in Wales: principles— 
 'In the delivery of children's services in Wales, Children's Services Authorities and their relevant partners specified in section 21 shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.'.

Hilton Dawson: The amendment is designed to make the point that the Children's Commissioner should concern himself with the whole of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child rather than the abbreviated version to which, unfortunately, successive United Kingdom Governments have subscribed. To this day, the Government maintain two reservations with regard to the convention: in respect of immigration and citizenship, and in respect of children in the criminal justice system. Such children are plainly without the remit of the Minister for Children, Young People and Families.
 By any measure, we must agree that children who are subject to immigration legislation and those within the criminal justice system—tragically, during the summer, we experienced the death of the youngest person in modern penal history—are among the most vulnerable in society. Scandalously, this House has recently agreed that children of failed asylum seekers can be made destitute. It is imperative that the Children's Commissioner should have a fundamental role in relation to children in respect of whom the Government have withdrawn from the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. 
 New clause 8 simply stipulates that the work should be done by more than just one person in this country. We have had a lot of discussion about the fact that the Children's Commissioner should not be obliged to take on roles that should be fulfilled by other bodies. If this country takes the United Nations convention on the rights of the child as seriously as it should do, it should ensure that children's services authorities promote the convention to children, parents and their own staff. 
 The United Nations convention is a vital tool in assisting people to work with children, and in cases in which people within public bodies feel that they are not serving children well—they are unhappy about the policy that they have been required to follow or the actions of others, perhaps superiors, in their workplaces—it can be a vital comfort and support. It can encourage them to assert the rights of children and to blow the whistle when something goes wrong. I can see nothing wrong with promoting the convention. In fact, article 42 of the convention requires that the Government should promote it much more widely, rather than saying that one person in the country must have regard to it. 
 Finally, the Bill, like all others, contains a statement on the front about the impact in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is extremely important that Parliament considers the impact of every Bill on children, whatever it is. One might think, on the face of it, that some Bills had very little to do with the rights of children, but those are precisely the measures that serve children's needs and interests particularly badly. I do not know how often children's rights and interests are raised in discussions on planning and transport legislation. However, such matters are fundamentally important in a country where more children die on the roads than from any other cause, and where children are so often excluded from public provision and play space and ignored in the planning of new housing estates and developments in our towns and cities.

Annette Brooke: I support the amendment and the new clauses, but there are two issues. The amendment is significant, because removing the reservations in question will amount to a statement from the Government that every child does matter. We have rehearsed many times the arguments about the tragedy of how we treat the children of some immigrants and asylum seekers, and children in custody generally. I would like the Minister to consider the matter seriously.
 My second point is about the impact statement about children in all legislation. Again, we have a real opportunity here. The issue does not cross over into the rights agenda, in the way that I know concerns the Minister, but the proposals would put the interests of children—not necessarily the rights—at the heart of government.

Julie Morgan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, which concerns the most vulnerable children in society. Having recently met asylum seekers in Cardiff who fall outside the remit of the welfare state, I am enormously concerned about the children who are being left in such a vulnerable situation. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies, she will say why she, the Minister responsible for children, has been unable to address the needs of such vulnerable children.
 On new clause 15, we have already discussed the UNCRC, so I do not propose to go into that in detail. The purpose of the new clause is to place an obligation on all public services and local authorities in Wales to show that they are working in accordance with the convention, which is important. The UK and Wales have already signed up—Westminster is a signatory and the Assembly has passed a resolution binding itself to the convention. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce, clearly and directly, the same obligation for local authorities and other bodies. I am sure that all local authorities would say that they had regard to the convention, but putting that requirement in the Bill would give users the comfort of legislative force. 
 The same change was proposed in the Lords by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, who is my constituent. She withdrew the amendment because she was assured that the Government were in discussion with the 
 Assembly over the practical implications of the Assembly's stated policy of translating the UNCRC into several core policy aims. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the progress of those discussions? Some fairly complex legal issues are involved but the aim of the new clause is to highlight how important it is for this matter to be in the Bill.

Margaret Hodge: I want to emphasise that, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre thinks, the Government are committed to the aims and the principles of the UN convention. I hope that he would agree that our acceptance of the amendment in the House of Lords that the Children's Commissioner must, rather than may, have regard to the UNCRC demonstrates our support for the convention as a framework for the commissioner's operations.
 The National Assembly for Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) pointed out, fully recognises the importance of the UNCRC and has formally adopted the convention as the basis for all its work for children and young people. It has translated the convention rights into seven core aims to act as a basis for planning, for setting priorities and for developing measures of the impact of service provision. 
 Amendment No. 56 is a standard legal statement, which describes the legal position as it is. Any reference to the UNCRC in UK legislation must be subject to the way in which it is interpreted and accepted in this country. The wording of subsection (9) is therefore essential, but does not constrain any developments in the UK position and leaves the situation totally flexible. Were our reservations to be lifted at some future date, the current wording of subsection (9) could still stand.

Hilton Dawson: Does the part of the clause that I seek to delete in any way constrain the work of the Children's Commissioner?

Margaret Hodge: The commissioner, in having regard to the UNCRC, would have regard to it with the reservations that are in place in the UK. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, I have many asylum-seeking families in my constituency. A family in this country is covered by all the Children Act provisions and will be protected and safeguarded by all the provisions in the Bill. The question about immigration here is how the authorities implement immigration legislation and what is the prime function and purpose of that role. That does not in any way diminish the power of the authorities and the duties of social services departments and others in the UK to implement the Children Act as it stands and this Bill when it is enacted.
 On new clause 8, we are keen for children and those who care for them to learn about the convention. We have therefore created a departmental website to inform children of their rights under the convention, which we hope will soon be operational. If children's 
 services authorities choose to do something similar, so much the better. As I have said before, the aim of the Bill is to focus on outcomes, not rights. 
 I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will accept that the tragedies that led to the Laming inquiry and hence to this Bill were invariably due to systemic failure and not to a lack of knowledge of rights. Although we would encourage awareness of rights, I do not think that it should have a statutory basis. We do not want the focus to shift from concern about the principles. We want those who work with children to focus on processes and outcomes. 
 On new clause 13, Ministers are required to state that legislation is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European convention on human rights into UK law. Children and young people are therefore already covered by that assurance, so the requirement to comply with the 1998 Act covers the childproofing element of all our legislation. Both my job and the task of the commissioner, once that post is established, is to provide further assurance that legislation on planning, housing or whatever has the interests of children at heart. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, who tabled new clause 15, knows that we are working with the Assembly to find a way of writing that into the Bill. The Assembly, however, has yet to find a way in which they can change the law so that it would work in practice. The policy is utterly devolved, so it is totally open to the Assembly to come back to us, which it can do even on Report if it manages to devise a mechanism. We would then willingly incorporate the new clause into the Bill. 
 I therefore hope that Members will not press their amendments and new clauses to a vote.

Hilton Dawson: We have both clarified our positions, and in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed, No. 57, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out subsection (10).—[Margaret Hodge.]

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 184. 
 Government new clause 31—Care leavers and young persons with learning disabilities.

Hilton Dawson: I support the amendment, or are the Government supporting my amendment? I am not sure who tabled it first. I support at least the initial amendment to remove subsection (10), simply because children are internationally defined as being under the age of 18. The Committee has spent a lot of time talking about the wide-ranging remit of the Children's Commissioner and trying not to duplicate the work of others. The amendment, however, seems to do precisely that. It is vital that the Children's Rights Director—a post that was established under the Care Standards Act 2000—has a role in relation to children and young adults who have left care.
 Although the needs of young adults in prison are of enormous concern, they should not be dealt with by someone whose remit covers children. I am absolutely opposed to bringing young adults with learning disabilities back within the remit of the Children's Commissioner. That is an extraordinarily patronising thing to do. These people are adults, not children, and they should not be dealt with by the Children's Commissioner. There is a Disability Rights Commissioner. It is sometimes vital to tell young adults with learning disabilities that they are not children, but adults, and it is often important to reinforce that point to their parents. I see absolutely no reason to patronise, even demean, young adults with learning disabilities by including them within the remit of the Children's Commissioner.

Margaret Hodge: Let me respond to the two issues. I shall deal first with children with learning disabilities. I had the privilege of being the Minister with responsibility for disabled people and spent some time taking through much of the legislation, of which this Labour Government are very proud. The reality for anyone working with children and young people with learning disabilities is that one of the key difficulties that they all face is the period of transition from children's to adult services. The whole purpose of the amendment is to support young people as they move into adulthood through those services. That involves everything from education, social care and housing.
 I do not know what my hon. Friend's experience is, but there are young people in my constituency who find it extremely hard, for example, to move out of education in the school system to education in the adult system, because of the difficulties of finding placements. The amendment would provide support through that transition, when they may well still be accessing children's services; it is, interestingly enough, in order to promote the rights of young people with learning disabilities that we have deliberately included this in the Bill. It is incredibly important if we want to build a society where equality has meaning. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: The reality of the matter is that the clause 2 that we shall end up with, courtesy of a good deal of Government amendments, is vastly different from the one we started with. It resembles more the clause that was in the Bill before its progress through the upper House. I cannot understand why the Government did not just delete the whole clause and submit a new one, rather than fiddling around with a load of little amendments. That appears to disguise the fact that they have completely emasculated the whole purpose of the strengthened clause 2, which had cross-party support in the upper House.
 I do not know whether the officials are paid on the basis of the number of amendments that they are able to get the Minister to submit, but it is rather odd. What 
 we are left with seems to echo the comments made by the commissioner campaign co-ordinating group, which said: 
 ''We are deeply concerned that the Government is reneging on its Green Paper promise to create 'a children's champion independent of Government'.'' 
That is the key consideration that we have had all along. 
 Let us now be clear about what has happened to the clause. It now leaves out rights; it is not about promoting rights, but about promoting awareness of views. As I described it, a glorified children's television presenter could, on the face of it, do the same job. Children will, in effect, have no rights in this Bill. It is a rights-light and rights-free Bill. Consider how patronising and feeble—the Minister should appreciate this—the Disability Rights Commission would appear if its general function were simply to promote awareness of the views of disabled people. The same would be true of the Commission for Racial Equality or the Equal Opportunities Commission. 
 The Minister has rightly mentioned her own role in relation to the Disability Rights Commission, and she might like to comment on that. We can argue over whether animals have rights, or whether we have duties towards their welfare, but surely that does not apply to children. The amendments have now diluted the review and report powers, removing the advocacy and whistleblowing arrangements that we debated earlier. The clause no longer beefs up the Children's Commissioner's obligations to make children aware that they can consult him. It restores the Government's limited checklist of what sort of children's views and interests—not rights—he can take notice of. It reinforces his inability to launch inquiries into individual cases, even when there are big implications for children generally. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned in his amendment, it weakens some of the UN convention considerations. 
 The ninth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights states: 
 ''Existing arrangements . . . are insufficiently independent from Government to ensure that the rights and interests of all children in England are fully protected'' 
and that 
''independence is the key value that a Children's Commissioner would add to existing mechanisms.'' 
It also states that the Committee favours a commissioner who is 
''independent from but working closely with central government and other agencies.'' 
Those extracts were also quoted in the House of Lords on 4 May 2004, at column 1039. 
 The Children's Commissioner is one tsar of whom we can approve, if he or she helps to protect and promote the welfare of children. In another place, Lord Elton used as an example Judge Stephen Tumim—the chief inspector of prisons who was a thorn in the Government's side. That is also the role of the Children's Commissioner if he or she thinks that the Government are not properly standing up for children. When the original version of the clause was debated in the Lords, the commissioner's role was 
 described as ''discriminatory'', ''castrated'', and a ''glorified public relations consultant''. The Government claim that it is what the children want, but I have seen no evidence of that. 
 In applying constructive opposition to parts of the Bill, particularly part 1, I have based our amendments and debate on five principles. They are that the commissioner should be independent of Government and a real children's champion; be powerful enough to do his job properly, regardless of the latest Government schemes or funding shortfalls; be fully engaged with children and young people, and have their confidence that he can do the job—Baroness Ashton of Upholland said that in the upper House on 4 May 2004, at column 1043; have a clear status in the context of other UK commissioners, agencies and other interested parties; and be accountable to all the above considerations. Those are the principles that we apply to the Children's Commissioner, but I fear that they are not met by the clause now that it has been completely rehashed and emasculated by the Government. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to vote against the clause.

Annette Brooke: We, too, will vote against the clause as amended. It is an enormous disappointment to many Members and, of course, to the wide range of organisations that supported the amendments in the Lords. A great deal of credit was given to the tremendous cross-party working that achieved a model for the type of commissioner that many people want.
 It is clear from the debate that we have different lines of thinking that do not cross, so I will not speak at great length. I foresee that we will end up with a commissioner who will do many laudable things and produce wide-ranging reports, but that English children will not get the same service as Welsh children, whose rights will be given greater consideration. I am concerned that there will be a basic inequality between what English children and children in other parts of the UK can achieve through their commissioner.

Andrew Turner: But the hon. Lady's party is an advocate not only of devolution in Wales and Scotland but of regional government. Surely she appreciates that one consequence of devolution is inequality of service delivery in different parts of the UK. I accept her line—although I think that she is wrong—that provisions in England should be the same, and that children in England should benefit from the same services, but I do not accept that inequality is an argument.

Annette Brooke: I would be failing in my duty as an English MP if I did not fight for the rights of English children. Devolution may bring different outcomes, but that does not meant that one should just sit back. Surely, if we think something is right for our part of the UK, we should fight for it. I am perfectly entitled to make those points.

Roger Williams: I rise to support my hon. Friend. She is certainly right to fight for the interests of children in England. I say to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that devolution is not about isolation, and that it is producing a better result for the whole United Kingdom and provides an opportunity for other areas and regions to learn best practice. The lesson that we are learning from this legislation—

Joe Benton: Order. We will not go down the line of discussing the merits of devolution. I ask hon. Members to return to clause 2 as amended.

Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend. Much attention has indeed been paid to the roles of the previously established commissioners in the UK, and it is always good to learn from other patterns and experiences. What concerns me is whether the issue now comes down to funding: providing the same type of service as in Wales and at the same time taking a broad-brush approach would cost more money. I am beginning to feel that funding may now be of the essence, which is a tragedy. I believe that, fundamentally, children's rights should be at the heart of the Children's Commissioner's work. The Minister and I will not agree on this issue, but everything else follows from that. All the criteria that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned would be met if children's rights were at the heart of the commissioner's functions.
 I shall be disappointed to vote against the clause, but I hope that through the vote we can at least express the strength of feeling on the issue and the view that this is not the end of the line. We need to come together and try to work out a better solution for the commissioner for England.

Margaret Hodge: I shall reply to the debate only briefly, because there is a danger that we will go over the same ground time and again. I am informed that the advice of the parliamentary draftsmen is that each element of the clause that we changed had to be changed in that way so as not to lose the whole. The draftsmen advised us that that was the appropriate process.
 I look forward to having a debate in perhaps a year or 18 months' time on how the first English commissioner works in practice. I expect the commissioner to be a thorn in the side not only of Government but, probably, of every parliamentarian and a number of other institutions and bodies throughout the UK. That is why we are establishing the post. Rights will remain the foundation of his or her work, but he or she will have ambitions that go beyond that and focus on outcomes. 
 I also look forward to both Government and Opposition Members reflecting in a couple of years' time on how the commissioner is working, and joining me in celebrating the establishment for the first time in England of a commissioner who will champion the cause of children and ensure that the things that matter to them, and not to the professional activists' lobby, are the focus of his or her work. I hear about the things that matter to children in the classrooms, playgroups 
 and youth clubs that I visit up and down the country. The commissioner should use his or her office to promote better outcomes for children. I am sure that the post will work and that in two years' time we will all celebrate its success. Indeed, I am not sure what the commissioner would be doing if his or her functions were not as laid out in clause 2. 
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Annual report

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert
'he must—
(a) lay a copy before each House of Parliament, and
(b) simultaneously send a copy to the Secretary of State.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 95, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 14, after 'must', insert 
 'as soon as is reasonably practicable.'. 
Amendment No. 9, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (4). 
Amendment No. 10, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State must respond formally to the Commissioner's report within 3 months of it having been published and lay his response before Parliament.'. 
Clause stand part. 
 Government new clause 30—Annual reports 
 New clause 2—Requirement to review working of Part 1 of the Act— 
 '(1) The Children's Commissioner shall— 
 (a) keep under review the working of Part 1 of this Act and in doing so consult with children and representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests; 
 (b) make reports on it to the Secretary of State in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
 (2) The first report under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Part. 
 (3) A subsequent report under this section shall be made at such time as the Children's Commissioner thinks fit, not being earlier than three years after the making of the last previous report. 
 (4) A report under this section— 
 (a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this Part; and 
 (b) may contain recommendations as to amendments to this Part which in the opinion of the Children's Commissioner are necessary desirable. 
 (5) The Secretary of State shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'.

Tim Loughton: We are motoring now—we are discussing clause 3. There are several amendments to the clause that my hon. Friends and I tabled and that have not been hijacked by the Minister—that means that she will probably vote against them. I shall not spend a great deal of time on the amendments, because they are self-explanatory.
 Amendment No. 8 concerns the commissioner's annual report. During the stand part debate on clause 2, I gave the reasons why it is important for the commissioner to be independent of the Executive—to be a thorn in their side. We are trying to ensure that independence through amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, in particular. I will discuss new clause 2 later. 
 We do not see why the commissioner should have to submit annual reports initially and exclusively to the Secretary of State. I am sure that a Secretary of State would not wish to censor the reports, but as the clause stands, he would have the power to do so without Parliament being able to see what was in the unedited, uncut version. The Children's Commissioner should be able to report to Parliament. 
 The other day, I suggested to the Minister that the Education and Skills Committee might wish to establish a Sub-Committee. I see that hon. Members have tabled an early-day motion with the aim of establishing a children's affairs Committee, which is an interesting idea. However, in relation to the work of the Children's Commissioner, there would be great merit in having a specific Sub-Committee of the Education and Skills Committee to which he could report. That would be similar to the confirmatory hearings mentioned the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), which are held for the Governor of the Bank of England by the Treasury Committee. 
 Amendment No. 8 would require the Children's Commissioner, when he gives the report to the Secretary of State, to lay a copy of the report simultaneously before the House as a whole. It would then be up to the Secretary of State to prepare his response, but his response would be made to the version that the Children's Commissioner has submitted to him and to the House. 
 If the Minister is not prepared to accept that reasonable amendment, will she give us an undertaking that the Secretary of State will not be in the business of censoring or editing the report? Can she tell us why the Secretary of State should see it first, other than for him to be able to prepare a brief 
 statement in response for delivery on the following day, as Ministers normally do? If she is not prepared to accept the amendment, what would be the maximum period of delay between the Children's Commissioner submitting his report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State then laying it before each House of Parliament? In the interests of transparency and accountability to the House rather than to the Executive, amendment No. 8 is perfectly reasonable. 
 Amendment No. 9 is contingent on amendment No. 8, and amendment No. 10 would introduce a time scale within which the Secretary of State should respond to the Children's Commissioner's report. We tried to introduce a time scale for inquiries in an earlier debate and the Minister made the not unreasonable point about horses for courses—some inquiries may require more immediate action than three months, whereas others may need longer, although we tried to introduce a mechanism to ensure that somebody who had not complied with the requirement for three months could say why and obtain an extension. 
 It is wholly appropriate that there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to respond to the annual report within three months. He will have to do that again a year after in any case, so a three-month time scale would be perfectly sensible and would also cover a recess period. For example, if a report were laid before the summer recess, the Secretary of State could make a statement after we came back, so I cannot see any practical objections. The proposal is perfectly reasonable, plausible, moderate, positive and constructive, and I am sure that the Minister will wish to entertain it favourably. 
 On new clause 2, the important thing about establishing a new commissioner structure is not to create yet another tsar or give more people more titles, thereby swelling the number of public servants. Rather, its purpose and the basis on which it will be judged is what it adds to the protection and promotion of the welfare of children. How many fewer Victoria Climbie type cases have there been and how much have the educational achievements and health of children improved under the stewardship of the new post holder? That should be the basis on which we judge whether the Children's Commissioner has been a success, not how many meetings have been held, how many visits there have been or how many committees have been set up. 
 In new clause 2 we seek to introduce a review process. That is not unusual for new bodies, particularly those that are innovatory and have wide-ranging powers. For example, I served for a long time on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and then the Standing Committee that considered the establishment of the Financial Services Authority. We set in train processes whereby the workings of that body could be reviewed after a period. That is what we seek to do in new clause 2. 
 When the Children's Commissioner has been established for three years, one can form a view on whether things are going well or not so well, or whether 
 the entire job is redundant—I hope that that would be unlikely, but if the commissioner was not serving the purpose that we all thought he was there to serve, we would need to review whether he had a purpose at all. New clause 2 sets out a procedure whereby the provisions in the Bill that deal with the role of the Children's Commissioner can be reviewed 
''as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Part.'' 
The report should contain the views of the commissioner on whether he believes that he has the powers to do the job and whether we need to change the legislation, and his recommendations on that. As part of the process, it is also essential that the views of other people—the customers, the clients, the agencies that work with the commissioner and the parliamentarians and other representatives—should be taken into account. We have also included a requirement that the Secretary of State should be able to respond to that review as well. 
 The Minister said that she hoped that we would return in 18 months' time and have a party to celebrate how wonderfully well things had gone. I hope that that is the case—I look forward to sitting on the other side of the Committee, and I will be happy to fund the drinks.

Stephen Ladyman: You shouldn't bother saving.

Tim Loughton: I have completely lost my train of thought now.
 Three years is a reasonable period in which to have a review. It is essential that we put that in this legislation, rather than passing more legislation without the proper checks and balances to ensure that the job is being done as intended. That is what the amendments seek to achieve. They are wholly constructive and in the spirit of the Bill, and I trust that the Minister will look favourably on them.

Annette Brooke: I broadly support the thrust of the amendments. Everybody will want reassurance that the report will not sit on the Secretary of State's desk for about a year before it is let out into the public domain. It is always difficult to state a precise limit in legislation; I notice that the Government new clause says ''As soon as possible''. People need to be reassured that the reports will be in the public domain as soon as is practicable, and that we will review and scrutinise the work of the Children's Commissioner in a reasonable time. I hope that we will be able to celebrate the work of the Children's Commissioner and, come what may, will find matters of great interest in those reports. Does the Minister concur that we need clear time frames if the measure is to work properly?

Margaret Hodge: There is great sympathy across the Committee for the aims of the amendments. Perhaps when I have spoken to them, and to our new clause, hon. Members will feel happier.
 Amendment No. 8 would require the Commissioner to lay his annual report directly to Parliament, and not through the Secretary of State. We are simply following standard practice in the way in which non-departmental public bodies place their reports before Parliament; there is no question of interfering with independence.I have taken the trouble to look at every non-departmental public body, and it will interest hon. Members to know that Ofsted, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission, the immigration services commissioner, Ofcom, English Heritage, the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the Independent Police Complaints Commission all report directly to the Secretary of State. The Welsh commissioner reports to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish commissioner to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish commissioner to the First Minister. The only reports in the United Kingdom that go direct to Parliament are those of the National Audit Office and the Electoral Commission. There are sensible reasons for that. In the case of the NAO, we oversee the purse strings, so it is appropriate that it should report to us, and the business of the Electoral Commission is elections, which is the concern of parliamentarians, rather than of the Government. 
 All we are doing is following standard practice. I can give all the assurances that hon. Members require that we have no intention to censor anything in any way. I hope that some concerns will be allayed by new clause 30, which includes a provision requiring the Secretary of State to lay the commissioner's report before Parliament as soon as possible. Amendment No. 95 says ''practicable'' rather than ''possible''. That is lawyers' paradise, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Apparently, ''possible'' means that one does everything that one can to make it a priority, but ''practicable'' is less pressing. It allows one to take other matters into account and to prioritise on the basis of what one can reasonably· do. That being the case, I hope that she would agree that ''possible'' rather than ''practicable'' seems to be the appropriate word to achieve the result that she seeks. 
 Amendment No. 9 is about removing the requirement on the commissioner to publish his annual report. We believe that publication is a different matter from laying the report. Again, I hope that hon. Members will agree that we want his annual report to be read and considered as widely as possible. The duty on him to publish it so that it will be read is partly how that will happen, so the duty will form part of the accountability framework for the commissioner that we have tried to establish through the clauses. I hope that, having heard that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment. 
 On the issue of responding formally, it is clear that the Government will need to respond to anything that the commissioner says relates to the Government, but it is also quite possible that the commissioner's report will go beyond covering issues that are their direct responsibility. We would not want to limit the response to being one simply for the Government, so 
 although we will respond, it would be inappropriate to insist simply on a response from the Government. We will expect everyone to respond. In discussing earlier amendments, we talked about the commissioner's reports on particular issues. Again, we have strengthened that provision to ensure a response. 
 New clause 2 is similar to a new clause that was tabled in another place earlier this year. It would probably constrain rather than facilitate a regular review of the powers and responsibilities of the commissioner as laid out in the Bill. If the commissioner wants to review his function, he should be able to do so without any time constraint. He might want to do so two months into office, so why set a three-year period? It is an integral part of his work that the review of his functions should be part of what he considers, so the new clause is unnecessary and would constrain his ability to review his functions as and when appropriate. 
 The wider review, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, could take place through the Select Committee. That might be an appropriate way by which parliamentarians could call evidence from all those with an interest in the way in which the commissioner works, and it would be the most appropriate way in which others could engage in the process. The commissioner, however, has utter authority to review any of his functions as and when appropriate and to report either as part of the annual report or in a separate report. We need to retain the commissioner's independence to work as he wishes and not to constrain him in any way. I suggest that new clause 2 is inappropriate. 
 I shall talk briefly about new clause 30, with which we want to replace clause 3. It is similar to the previous clause 3 annual reports in that it requires the commissioner to prepare an annual report, and outlines the type of information to be contained in the report and the processes involved in laying it before Parliament. I am sure that I do not have to mention the importance of such a clause, given the public interest in the commissioner's office. It differs from the previous one in that it requires the commissioner to report on the way in which he has discharged his function under the whole part, not just under clause 2. This is a necessary alteration because of the way in which we propose, in provisions that we are about to discuss for the devolved Administrations, that the commissioner has functions on non-devolved matters in other UK nations on which it would be important for him to report. 
 Subsection (1)(a) of new clause 30 excludes the need to report on the commissioner's inquiry functions, as they will be subject to separate reports, and a new subsection has been introduced that requires the commissioner to report on the steps that he has taken to involve children in the discharge of his function. Again, I am sure that all Members will be happy with that, because it stresses the fundamental importance of involving children. 
 Subsection (3), as before, requires the commissioner to send a copy of his annual report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is required to lay the 
 report before the House. As I said, we do not believe that presenting the report to Parliament via the Secretary of State will compromise the independence of the commissioner. The Secretary of State has no power to alter the annual report in any way. 
 Subsection (4) is similar to the original subsection (4), placing a duty on the commissioner to publish any report that is made under the new clause and laid before Parliament. Subsection (5) defines the term ''financial year'' in exactly the same way as before. I therefore hope that the changes proposed in new clause 30 will enhance the original clause.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister, who has given a fair degree of assurance. She trooped out a great long list of interdepartmental standard practices, which is not to say that those involved are not all doing the wrong thing or that they should not all be more transparent and accountable to Parliament, rather than to the Executive. However, that is perhaps an argument for another day, and I reluctantly accept her point.
 I was slightly heartened by the autonomy that the Minister ascribed to the commissioner, who may be able to initiate a review sooner. However, I am looking at a more fundamental review of the whole structure, which could even result in a recommendation that the children's commissioner was superfluous, although that is unlikely, and we hope that that would not happen. However, the process should be as fundamental as that, which is why it seemed reasonable that the period for consideration should be three months, rather than two. 
 I want to take up just one point in new clause 30. Subsection (5) states: 
 ''The Children's Commissioner must also, to the extent that he considers appropriate, publish any report made under this section in a version which is suitable for children'', 
and I concur with that. Mencap and other charities have urged that the report should also be suitable for children with disabilities, so perhaps the Minister could give an assurance that reasonable steps will be taken to facilitate that, too. If she did, she would have our support.

Margaret Hodge: I am happy to give that assurance.

Tim Loughton: I am delighted that we have got an assurance out of the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 3 disagreed to.

Clause 4 - Inquiries initiated by Commissioner

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 4, page 3, line 22, after 'child', insert 'in England'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 178.
 Amendment No. 12, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out 'and Wales'. 
Government amendment No. 13. 
 Government amendment No. 17. 
 Government amendment No. 182. 
 Amendment No. 18, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out 'and Wales'. 
Amendment No. 19, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 36, leave out subsections (8) and (9). 
Amendment No. 195, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert— 
 '(a) any matter regarding children in Wales; 
 (b) any matter relating to children in Scotland; or 
 (c) any matter relating to children in Northern Ireland.'. 
Amendment No. 198, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— 
 '(a) any matter relating to children in Wales'. 
Amendment No. 21, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State, in regulations, must specify procedures for applying this legislation to children normally resident in England engaged in education, treatment and other activities in another part of the United Kingdom, and specifying which body is to be the responsible authority.'. 
Amendment No. 196, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert— 
 '(3) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to— 
 (a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards to children in Wales; and 
 (b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales. 
 (4) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland to— 
 (a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Scotland; and 
 (b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Scotland. 
 (5) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland to— 
 (a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Northern Ireland; and 
 (b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales.'. 
Clause 6 stand part. 
 Government new clause 27—Functions of Commissioner in Wales. 
 Government new clause 28—Functions of Commissioner in Scotland. 
 Government new clause 29—Functions of Commissioner in Northern Ireland. 
 New clause 6—Relationship between Commissioners— 
 '( ) The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with— 
 (a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and
 (b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England, unless the matter relates principally to events or circumstances in England.'. 
New clause 7—Relationship between Commissioners (No. 2)— 
 'The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with— 
 (a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and 
 (b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England.'. 
New clause 18—Extension of the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales— 
 '(1) Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (additional power of consideration and representation) is amended as follows. 
 Leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert— 
 ''( ) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations about, any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales to— 
 (a) the Assembly, and 
 (b) where the matter is not devolved and the Commissioner considers it appropriate, the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or government department.''.'. 
New clause 33—Requirement to review the working of the effect of the creation of a UK children's commissioner on the function of the existing commissioners in the nations of the UK— 
 '(1) Each of the Children's Commissioners in the UK shall monitor the effect of having more than one Children's Commissioner operating in their nation simultaneously. 
 (2) Each of the Children's Commissioners shall make reports to the Secretary of State, the National Assembly, Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the findings of the provisions specified in section 1(a) and (b) above and in accordance with the following provisions of this section. 
 (3) The report shall, in particular, consider the impact of having more than one Children's Commissioner representing children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, including— 
 (a) the overall level of understanding of children in the UK nations as to the division of responsibility between the different Commissioners representing them; 
 (b) the effectiveness and role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland; and 
 (c) any evidence of duplication in work undertaken by the commissioners. 
 (4) The reports under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the coming into force of Part 1 of this Act. 
 (5) In producing a report under this section the Children's Commissioners shall consult— 
 (a) children; 
 (b) representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests; and 
 (c) the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. 
 (6) A Report under this section— 
 (a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this part; and 
 (b) may contain recommendations to amend this Act. 
 (7) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'.
New clause 35—Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons— 
 '( ) Section 72B of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14) (review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons) is amended as follows. 
 ( ) In subsection (3), omit paragraphs (a) and (c) 
 ( ) Omit subsections (4) and (6).'.

Don Touhig: I am pleased to speak for the first time in this Standing Committee, Mr. Benton, under your chairmanship, and I look forward to the guidance and assistance that you will give us as we go through these amendments and new clauses. If you will permit, I shall speak to the Government amendments first, and shall leave the other amendments until later so that other colleagues will have something to say.
 Taken together, the Government amendments and new clauses have the effect of clearly presenting the scope of the children's commissioners functions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and logically assembling in one place various provisions concerning those countries that are, at present, situated in different clauses of part 1. The effect of the amendments is clearly to make this role one of an English commissioner-plus, who does not undermine the existing role of the other commissioners and can work with them. For example, a memorandum of understanding could be used to minimise possible confusion for children in the other countries about whom they should address themselves to. 
 The key amendments are Government new clauses 27, 28 and 29, which create new clauses describing the children's commissioner's functions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The remainder of the amendments are consequential and remove references to the other countries in other clauses of part 1. Amendment No. 11 restricts the scope of clause 4 to England and amendments Nos. 187 and 13 are consequential to that. Amendments Nos. 17 and 182 perform the same functions for clause 5. It was not necessary to table a similar amendment to clause 2 because its scope is already restricted to England, following its amendment in another place. 
 Amendment No. 51 removes the existing clause 6, which will become unnecessary as its provisions will be included in the proposed new clauses. The changes that we propose maintain the current position: the commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are wholly responsible for matters that are devolved in their respective countries. They are not being downgraded to regional or deputy commissioners reporting to an overseeing United Kingdom Children's Commissioner. That was never the Government's intention. However, we acknowledge that there was some disquiet in another place, arising from an earlier draft of the Bill, which described the Children's Commissioner as having the function of promoting the views and interest of children in the United Kingdom.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disquiet expressed yesterday by the Children's Commissioners in their meeting in Cardiff? They said
 that they believed that it was insidious to give the English commissioner a role in promoting awareness of children's views and interests in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, even concerning reserved matters. They said that that would be confusing for children who do not think about the issues that affect their lives in constitutional terms. They are also concerned about the potential confusion and difficulty in giving an English commissioner a role in holding inquiries on individual cases in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that such an arrangement will cause confusion.

Don Touhig: I am aware of that statement and of the concerns expressed by the Children's Commissioners. I say to my hon. Friend, and to a wider audience—possibly including the Children's Commissioners—that the latest annual report from the Children's Commissioner for Wales asks:
 ''What do the commissioner and his team do?'' 
He answers: 
 ''The commissioner can consider and make representations to the National Assembly about any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales. This means that he can deal with issues outside the responsibility of the National Assembly such as youth justice, family courts, and social security benefits.'' 
My hon. Friend is a hard-working and distinguished member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which, in its report on the powers of the Children's Commissioner, said: 
 ''We reiterate our belief that the Children's Commissioner for Wales has made a positive impact on the lives of children in Wales. We have been particularly impressed by the way Peter Clarke, the Children's Commissioner, has developed working relationships with organisations and agencies that cover areas outside of his remit to ensure that children in Wales receive the best possible support available to them.'' 
I think that, in part, that reassures my hon. Friend on the point that I am trying to make: that in practice the commissioners are already ensuring that the rights and interests of children are protected across all areas of public service delivery and that they have a role to play.

Julie Morgan: I know that my hon. Friend is working for the interests of children in Wales. However, does he not agree that the fact that the Children's Commissioner for Wales already has the power to make representation on any non-devolved matters relating to children in Wales is a recipe for disaster if the English Children's Commissioner can make representations and carry out inquiries on those same children? Is there not the potential for confusion?

Don Touhig: I do not accept that there is potential for confusion. As I will also say later, we expect close collaboration among the commissioners throughout the United Kingdom, possibly through a working memorandum of understanding through which they will seek to overcome problems.
 I have been in this position several times—taking through the House legislation that is somewhat different in Wales than in England. If I am allowed to 
 digress for a moment, I remember that there were concerns about the Health (Wales) Bill and the work of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in England and the Healthcare Inspection Unit for Wales. We agreed that there would be a proper collaborative working arrangement to avoid duplication and confusion, and it is working in practice. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Roger Williams: The Minister quotes a conclusion from the Welsh Affairs Committee, which says that the commissioner is developing good relationships with organisations outside his remit. Surely this Bill gives us the opportunity to firm up those good relationships and bring them within his remit.

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the arrangements are already working in practice. The Children's Commissioner for Wales can make representations to the Assembly on matters that are reserved. He can make, and has made, informal representations to Ministers in Whitehall. Indeed, on 11 May, following a meeting with the Children's Commissioner, I wrote to him to repeat that in the event of his having any concerns regarding a non-devolved policy area, I would be happy to raise those matters with the relevant UK Minister. The commissioner has done that, and I have raised those matters. In practice, there is a good working harmony and relationship, and there is no impediment to the work of the children's commissioners in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in that regard.
 I hope now to make progress. We have listened and, as a result, we have produced the amendments, which make it clear that the Children's Commissioner's functions apply to children in England, and new clauses 27 to 29, which confer functions on him in respect of children in other countries, as has just been mentioned. I must make it clear that the Government acknowledge that issues of relevance and interest to children will relate to both devolved and non-devolved matters. Similarly, children, especially children in trouble, may not know and will certainly not care how the devolution system works and whether or not matters are devolved. 
 For that reason, in subsection (3) of each new clause, we require the Children's Commissioner to take account of the views and work done by his other UK colleagues. That practical step will help to overcome the difficulties, which responds to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. We envisage that the commissioners will draw up a memorandum of understanding on how best to work together, but that is a matter for them. We have no wish to impede or constrain the commissioners' independence in that respect. Sense is not always that common, but I believe that common sense will dictate that there will be a close working relationship between them. The Government have no desire to impose any system of working on the commissioners. That must be left to their own judgment. That is why we do not mention or prescribe any formal way of working together in the Bill. 
 Similarly, we do not envisage that a child will have to say to themselves, ''My problem concerns matter X, so I must consult Commissioner Y''. If a child in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland needs the services of a commissioner, we envisage that it will turn in the first instance to the commissioner in their country. That is our aspiration, as I am sure it is for everybody here and for the commissioners themselves. It will then be for that respective commissioner to decide whether and how their counterpart based in England should become involved in accordance with their own functions, those of other children's commissioners and with any memorandum of understanding that they have drawn up. 
 Some hon. Members will prefer the remit of the Children's Commissioner not to extend beyond England. I respect that point of view, but I do not agree with it. The Government are obliged to act within the parameters of the current devolution settlement. It is not our job, in taking this Bill through the Commons, to rewrite the devolution settlement; that is a matter for another time and place. Not allowing the Children's Commissioner to have responsibility for non-devolved matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would mean that children in those countries would be deprived of the influence that the commissioner will have here at Westminster on matters that are the responsibility of, and are decided by, Parliament.

Roger Williams: Surely the Minister contradicts himself. He says that, in practice, the commissioner in Wales is already doing that and that he has facilitated the commissioner making representations to the appropriate Minister. Why the duplication?

Don Touhig: No, there is no contradiction; perhaps I am not making myself abundantly clear. What I am saying is that there should be no restriction on the English-plus commissioner, who will have responsibility to consider any matters in reserved areas. We should not restrict him from doing that if it is the appropriate way to ensure that if an issue arises and he wishes to take it up, the case of a child in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland will be investigated by someone who will report directly to a Minister answerable to this Parliament. I hope that hon. Members will see the benefit of children outside England being able to use the services of both commissioners.
 I am conscious of time, but I would like to refer briefly to key elements of Government new clauses 27 to 29. New clause 27(1) makes it clear that the Children's Commissioner's functions in Wales will be strictly limited to matters outwith the control of the National Assembly. Subsection (2) refers back to relevant parts of clause 2 to define those functions. I have already described at length the purpose of subsection (3), which will require the Children's Commissioner to take account of the views of, and any work done by, his counterpart in Wales. Subsection (4) gives the commissioner an inquiry power in Wales similar to that for England as set out in clause 4. 
 Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry in Wales.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend not think that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the Children's Commissioner in England to undertake an inquiry in Wales impedes the commissioner's independence?

Don Touhig: No, I do not. It is important to recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families has made clear several times in Committee, that the functions of the Children's Commissioner in England will be different to the operation of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. In Wales, the commissioner examines key individual cases and issues, whereas in England the view of the commissioner will be much broader and strategic. There will be no conflict at all.
 The provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland are, in effect, identical to those for Wales. Subsections (1) to (5) in new clause 28 for Scotland and new clause 29 for Northern Ireland have the same effect as subsections (1) to (5) in new clause 27 for Wales. Subsection (6) is the text of existing subsections (8) or (9), as appropriate, of clause 4, which has been transferred to the new clauses. Subsection (7) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry in Scotland or Northern Ireland respectively. That corresponds to a similar provision for England in clause 5. Subsection (8) is a technical cross-reference. Subsection (9) is the existing text of subsections (8) or (9), as appropriate, of clause 5, which has been transferred to the new clauses. Subsection (10) defines reserved or exceptional matters. 
 We are fully committed to establishing good working relationships between the commissioners throughout the United Kingdom. The Government's amendments are the result of lengthy discussions, and I think that they will do that. It is therefore appropriate for me to pause at this stage to allow colleagues with other amendments to make their comments, and I will then respond.

Tim Loughton: This is a highly complicated series of amendments and new clauses, grouped together for the whole clause. Perhaps we should talk about the generality of the amendments.
 The Under-Secretary started by saying that the Government intended to establish an English commissioner who does not undermine any other commissioner. I fear that there is great concern that the English commissioner will still do that, even if the amendments are accepted. The Under-Secretary referred to some disquiet; that is putting it very modestly, certainly in view of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said about comments from the other commissioners only yesterday. The Under-Secretary also talked about the hopes and inspirations for the English commissioner to be for English children. However, that is still not on the face of the Bill, and we need greater clarification. 
 We have started with a treble hijack, as no fewer than three of the amendments laid by myself and other hon. Members all of a sudden appear to have the name of the Minister for Children, Young People and Families at the top. They are technical amendments, which seek to make the point that we, and other hon. Members, have been trying to make—I am sure the hon. Gentleman from the Welsh nationalists would make it at greater length were he here today, which is why we might not have as lengthy a debate on the clause as we might have had—which is that the English commissioner should be concerned with children from England. His actions should be instigated by concerns from children in England. 
 Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 17 are all technical amendments to define England, rather than the other parts of the United Kingdom, on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 12 also does that but, for some reason, the Government have not sought to hijack it. 
 This is a complete dog's dinner. It still appears to be contradictory to the spirit of devolution. We have disagreements; we have differences in the way in which things are run in different parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has made that point. It is one of the strengths of devolution, supposedly. We respect the powers of different parts of the United Kingdom to have those disagreements and do things in different ways. 
 There was a lengthy and well informed debate on the subject in Committee in the House of Lords. Pertinent points were made by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, a constituent of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North—whether a Member of the House of Lords technically constitutes a constituent, I am not sure, but I am sure that the hon. Lady would not turn her away from one of her surgeries if she appeared seeking advice. During the Lords Committee in May, Baroness Finlay referred to a debate in the plenary sitting of the Assembly, where a motion was passed unanimously by 50 votes to nil stating that the Assembly welcomed the additional powers that the Children Bill gives to the Assembly, rejected the proposal that the English Children's Commissioner should have statutory functions over non-devolved matters in Wales, and called for the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to be extended to non-devolved matters. 
 Baroness Finlay also referred to the comments and actions of the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his amendments to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill in 2001. He ensured that the Children's Commissioner for Wales can make representations to the Assembly on any matter, devolved or non-devolved, that affects the welfare and rights of children. If the commissioner deems it appropriate, he can also make informal representations to the UK Government on those matters. Although the Wales Office has given reassurances that that can continue, it seems to me to be a courtesy to allow the commissioner freedom of expression. 
 My noble Friend Earl Howe also reinforced the existing rights of the Welsh commissioner. The commissioner already has the power to raise with the Welsh Assembly any matters of concern relating to non-devolved issues, leaving it to the Assembly to pass those concerns to the appropriate quarter as he wishes. However, even with these changes, it is envisaged that the Children's Commissioner of the United Kingdom will suddenly muscle in and assume responsibility for those issues relating to children that are non-devolved. Welsh children could find they have not one champion but two, working side by side. 
 If the Government get their way, the UK Children's Commissioner will not take up the cudgels for Welsh children in the same way as the Welsh commissioner currently does, because he will be concerned only with promoting awareness of the views and interests of those children, not with safeguarding and promoting their rights and interests. This difference in powers and functions is unsatisfactory enough for children in England and doubly unsatisfactory for children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because in practice it represents the dilution of a protection that they currently enjoy through their respective commissioners. 
 The Children's Rights Alliance has reinforced those points. It says that new clauses 27 to 29 
''show breathtaking insensitivity to the needs and rights of those countries' children''— 
the children of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It continues: 
 ''The idea of a Commissioner from England going or being sent into the other countries to carry out a formal inquiry seems quite absurd. Giving England's Commissioner a function of promoting the views and interests of children across the UK shows an astonishing ignorance of the roles of the existing Commissioners. They can already promote awareness of the views and interests of children on any matter, devolved or otherwise. What are lacking in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are formal investigatory and reporting powers over non-devolved matters.'' 
The question that arises is, where does the buck stop? That is what Lord Laming identified. Two main points that he made very forcefully in the Climbie report were the lack of joined-up thinking and practice between the professionals and the lack of accountability to a person with whom the responsibility for a failure in the system should lie. I fear we will repeat those problems where we have a confused relationship between the different commissioners. Some serious inequalities have been thrown up. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary has taken the point on board, but the Government proposals do not address the problem properly, and in some ways they exacerbate it. The system is confusing, it is not joined up and it threatens to produce two supposed children's champions. I still have a good deal of difficulty with the Bill, even with the proposed changes, although the amendments that we had hijacked have sought to define England more closely as opposed to Wales. 
 Amendment No.21 is on a slightly different subject—cross-border children. We all appreciate that there was a problem here. I do not appreciate how it 
 has been dealt with in the Bill. I gather that the definition of where a child is resident is where that child normally lives, but there will be many cases where children move around. We need to specify procedures for dealing with cross-border children. Later in the Bill we will deal with who is accountable for children who move between local authority areas within England, which is a big enough problem, but we have not addressed the problem of those who move from one United Kingdom country to another. 
 There are many examples: an English child who is at a boarding school in Cardiff or Edinburgh; a child who is in care across the border; a child who has contact orders with his parents who have split up and now live in different parts of the United Kingdom; a child who has a long-term medical condition and requires long-term medical residential care, particularly in mental health hospitals, which may be in any part of the United Kingdom; a child who is at a special needs school. In all those examples the Bill establishes a duty of care for school professionals, health professionals and social workers in order to ensure that the child is being looked after in a joined-up way. However, clause 4 is unclear about who should take the lead responsibility in the different countries. For instance, what happens if a child spends half the year at a school in Scotland and the other half at home with the parents, or half the year in a residential care facility in one country and the other half elsewhere? I am sure that it can be sorted out, but it is not clear in the Bill. Ultimately, therefore, no one is identified who can say, ''The buck stops with me.'' 
 Amendment No. 21 is constructive, but we have said that we will leave it to the Under-Secretary to define how things can be done. It specifies that, in regulations, the Government must come up with procedures for dealing with children who are normally resident in England but who, as I have described, are 
''engaged in education, treatment and other activities in another part of the United Kingdom, and specifying which body is to be the responsible authority.'' 
I would be grateful for a more detailed response on that; it is a practical concern. 
 We will probably argue until the cows come home over the amendments dealing with Wales. The provisions still appear to be a dog's dinner. They need to be greatly simplified. 
 We would have benefited from a more detailed explanatory note on the changes that the Government now propose, which were tabled only a week ago. I certainly would like greater clarification of what the Under-Secretary has already said, and I would appreciate a more comprehensive response to amendment No. 21.

Julie Morgan: I am sorry that we have had to debate the merits of a Welsh Children's Commissioner, and how the position relates to what is proposed for the English Children's Commissioner. It is a good Bill, and I am pleased that there will now be an commissioner for England; I am sorry that we have not been able to straighten out our differences, but it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that it could still be worked out satisfactorily for all concerned.
 Government amendment No. 11 clarifies the situation in a positive way, and other Government amendments in the group are positive in helping to clarify the position in England. However, the clause is still confusing in relation to Wales, which is not satisfactory. I shall concentrate on new clauses 7 and 18, and then speak to Government new clause 27. 
 New clause 18 would extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner in Wales to non-devolved matters; it would enable him to consider and make representations about any matter to the National Assembly for Wales or to the responsible Department or Minister at Westminster. That seems the most clear-cut, sensible and practical way of dividing responsibilities between the commissioners, and it would guarantee no confusion to the users of the service. Children in Wales would know that one person was able to deal with all matters. 
 My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks that he hoped that there would be only one point of contact, but I believe that the Welsh commissioner needs to be able to lobby on behalf of children in Wales on all matters. The general view of professionals, lobby groups and all involved in child care is that what the Government propose is unsatisfactory. The Welsh Affairs Committee recommended that the Welsh commissioner should cover all matters that impact on children and young people in Wales, regardless of whether they are devolved. In his evidence to that Committee, Peter Clarke clearly stated that the commissioner should act in an holistic way, and that he should not be tied by artificial boundaries related to constitutional issues. 
 New clause 18 would make the most constructive use of the fact that, since devolution, services operate differently in Wales than in England. One cannot say that a service such as youth justice is not devolved. Youth justice in Wales operates in a context in which housing, education and health are all delivered by the National Assembly—and they are delivered differently than in England. It is the same with the probation service; it operates in a different context. The Welsh commissioner is an expert on the Welsh policy context; he is fully briefed. Only someone who is on the spot and operating in Wales can understand that context. An English commissioner will have to develop a range of areas of expertise, and it is hard to imagine how they will become expert with what might be only occasional forays into Wales. The Welsh commissioner has an office in Wales and a Welsh language scheme in place and is fully briefed on what is happening in Wales. I do not see any way in which an English commissioner, operating in an English context, will be able to come into Wales and consider non-devolved matters in a devolved context in the way that a Welsh commissioner could. 
 That is why the new clause is the most sensible way forward. The Welsh commissioner can make representations and look into any matter affecting a child in Wales, and the practical step forward is to allow him to make representations to Ministers at Westminster. The new clause is the ideal way forward. It would not change the devolution settlement but 
 merely provide a practical arrangement to make things simpler and more straightforward for children and safer. The confusion that has often caused tragedies in this country has been mentioned, and having two children's commissioners operating will be very worrying. The current children's commissioners made a statement yesterday in Cardiff saying how insidious they felt it would be for a commissioner from another country to come in and try to raise awareness in Wales. Such a situation is non-workable. 
 I ask the Under-Secretary to think again about this issue. Even if it is not possible to persuade the Government to devolve additional powers to the Welsh commissioner, will he at least consider enabling the English commissioner to delegate non-devolved matters in Wales to the Welsh commissioner? That would make things clear and reduce confusion. Will he also assure us that it may be possible to consider the issue again before Report to see whether there is a way to reach agreement between all the parties involved and produce a proposal that gives children in Wales the maximum chance of having the benefit of the Children's Commissioner who is already there? 
 New clause 7 concerns the relationship between the commissioners. It would place a duty on the new commissioner to 
''consult and work together with'' 
the commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The debate that there has been on the relationship between the new commissioner and the others has probably highlighted more than any other debate the nature of post-devolution Britain. The key point of the new clause is to ensure that whatever model each commissioner is based on—they do not have to be based on the same model, although all commissioners should adhere to certain principles—they work together and consult one another for the good of the children involved. 
 That brings us back to the basic point. It is not for children to navigate their way between different pieces of legislation or different commissioners. It is essential that the commissioners work together as a single entity and that it is remembered that many of the children who will be dealt with are among the most vulnerable in our society and that tragedies have occurred when there have not been clear lines of responsibility. 
 I understand what my hon. Friend says about not wanting to impose working patterns on the commissioners and that that may be done via a memorandum of understanding. However, in written evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Peter Clarke stated: 
 ''While I welcome the opportunity of working together with the Children's Commissioner for England, I am not prepared to enter into any memorandum of understanding or other agreement which might compromise my independence prior to the appointment of the first postholder.'' 
That is an important point and I believe that it is right. It is important that guidelines be laid down about what a memorandum of understanding actually means. What does my hon. Friend envisage as the headings in 
 any such memorandum? What topics would be covered and what work has already been done on such a memorandum?

Andrew Turner: I am interested that the hon. Lady is asking the Under-Secretary those questions. Is she suggesting that he can answer in respect only of the commissioner who is the subject of the Bill, or also in respect of the other three commissioners?

Julie Morgan: I am asking whether the Government have given any thought to what form a memorandum would take. Although the individual commissioners should decide between themselves how they operate, the Government must give some thought to the memorandum. Otherwise, the Committee and the legislation would leave the matter wide open.
 The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was to try to determine the Government's thinking on the memorandum of understanding between the commissioners. My preferred option would be that the non-devolved powers should become the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. 
 I am extremely concerned about Government new clause 27. The way in which subsection (1) is worded undermines the existing commissioners—they feel strongly that it is not the way forward. 
 The Children's Commissioner for Wales has a general power to make representations on any matter affecting any child ordinarily resident in Wales. He already has a relationship with the police and visits prisons. When one commissioner is already examining those areas, it would be confusing to put in someone else with responsibility for those areas in Wales. 
 Young people in Wales already move in and out of devolved areas and non-devolved areas. Peter Clarke gives an example in which he could go to the secure unit at Hillside and would find that he had responsibility for one child who had gone into the unit through the care system but not for the child sitting next to him who had gone into the unit through the youth justice system. Two people in the same institution could be the responsibility of different commissioners. A situation could also arise in which Peter Clarke was dealing with a person in the community through the child welfare system, but if that person went into a secure unit, they would become the responsibility of another commissioner. That would be crazy. We should be able to work out something more satisfactory than what is proposed. 
 The young people that we are dealing with are very vulnerable, and we have a duty to ensure that the system works as well as possible for them. The model proposed in Government new clause 27 will not do that. It will add confusion and cause problems. I am sorry to have to say all this, because I strongly support the Bill, and know that good work has been put into many of its clauses. 
 In Wales we have a Children's Commissioner who has made a lot of difference to the lives of children there. In Wales it is universally recognised that it was 
 a big move forward to have the first Children's Commissioner in the UK. There were great hopes that the introduction of this legislation would address some of the areas that had caused difficulties. One of those areas—entry to buildings—is being addressed, so some progress is being made. However, it was also strongly hoped that the commissioner's powers could be extended to cover non-devolved matters. That would be the most satisfactory way of moving forward. I appeal to my hon. Friend to see whether anything else can be done to devise a more satisfactory solution. 
 I conclude by saying that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the English Children's Commissioner makes that commissioner much less independent than the other Children's Commissioners in the UK, and also much less independent than all the Children's Commissioners in the European network, who are now meeting in Cardiff. If the English commissioner is not totally independent, the Bill falls down in addressing the criteria for what commissioners should be. I cannot see how a commissioner can be independent if they can be directed by the Secretary of State. 
 I oppose Government new clause 27; my preferred option would be new clause 18. By tabling new clause 7, I also seek information on the Government's thinking about a memorandum of understanding.

Roger Williams: Thank you, Mr. Benton. I apologise for going beyond the brief of the Committee this morning. I shall try not to do so again, although the issues we are considering reflect on the devolution settlement, the way that devolution is working and how it will work in future in respect of the Bill.
 I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caernarfon cannot be present, because of the good work that he and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North did in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on the report on the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. It clarified thinking on what could be achieved and what would be in the best interests of children in Wales. 
 I am saddened that we seem to have reached an impasse vis-a-vis the Children's Commissioner for Wales, because there is much that is good in the Bill. Everyone who has the welfare of children at heart supports it. There were high hopes when the Bill was published that it would provide an opportunity to build on the good work being done by the Children's Commissioner for Wales—to reinforce and extend his powers within Wales, and also, in a limited degree, to extend his powers in respect of those children who are normally resident in Wales but who, for whatever reason, find themselves in England in other institutions or situations. The test that I apply to the amendments and new clauses is what will they do to reinforce and strengthen the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and to extend his ability to look after the interests of such children.
 In her evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Jane Hutt, the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services, summed up what we want. She said that 
''the most important thing is for us all to look at children and young people in Wales and to say for them: 'How can we ensure that we preserve the independence of the commissioner and enable children and young people to have one single point of reference in terms of seeking to make their views known or raising issues with the commissioner?''' 
That is another test of how the amendments and new clauses will work. 
 I have no problem with Government amendments Nos. 11, 178, 13 and 17, which help to clarify the role of the relationship between the commissioners in England and Wales. However, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North explained, there are difficulties with Government new clause 17, which undoes almost all the good work done in the other place in making amendments that clarified the relationship. 
 I take the practical example of the Clywch inquiry, which was welcomed by all sectors of political life in Wales and by other organisations on which its recommendations had an impact. If the new relationship as described in the Bill were in place, how would that inquiry be held, because it covers devolved and reserved matters? Would there be two inquiries, one by the Children's Commissioner for Wales and one by the English commissioner in respect of the reserved matters, or a single joint inquiry, with both commissioners being represented? There would be many possibilities for duplication and waste of resources. 
 In the case of the Clwych inquiry, the right thing happened: the Children's Commissioner for Wales carried out a very well focused inquiry and produced outcomes and recommendations that several organisations throughout Wales found very helpful. I therefore challenge the Minister on a practical point: how does the Bill improve that situation, and how will it be implemented? 
 New clause 27(6) states: 
 ''Where the Secretary of State considers that . . . an individual child in Wales raises issues of relevance to other children''. 
I presume that this is the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, or is it the Secretary of State for Wales? It is very unclear to whom the legislation refers. It should be the Secretary of State for Wales who recommends that an inquiry be carried out. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will clarify that. The new clause is replicated in new clauses 28 and 29, and all the comments that I have made about the situation in Wales have been replicated in representations that we have had on the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland. 
 My amendment No. 198, and amendment No. 195 in the name of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, which is very similar but fuller, make absolutely clear the limitations of the operations in Wales of the Children's Commissioner for England. We also support amendment No. 21, which would extend the commissioner's powers outside Wales, and new clauses 6 and 7. 
 I express again my sadness that we do not seem to be able to agree on this point. This matter has united the whole body politic throughout Wales, including local authorities, charities and other non-governmental organisations. It is ridiculous that we do not seem to be able to propose a solution, and that we are putting legislation before the rights and welfare of children. The Minister tells us that this is happening in practice, but I cannot believe that we should not legislate for what is happening in practice. Why should we legislate for something that is different from what is working? As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, we should make it as simple as possible for children to get into the system and to be confident that they know where they are going and that the system will deliver what they seek. We should ensure that it is a child-friendly service. The Bill makes it legislatively friendly, but not children friendly.

Andrew Turner: I have listened to the debate with great interest because I could not be further away from Wales if I tried. It seems that two new rules of devolution are being propounded. One, which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole propounds, is that if Wales chooses to act on a devolved matter, England must follow. The other, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North propounds, is that if Wales decides to act on a non-devolved matter, England must not poke its nose in.
 It is curious that what I believed to be a comprehensible, albeit in some respects flawed, devolution settlement is now being messed about with at both ends, and that we are being left with complete confusion about the underlying principles of devolution. It seems sensible that something is either a UK matter or a devolved matter, which is why I tabled the amendment that subsequently I did not move on Tuesday. I accept that, in different parts of the UK, some things are UK matters and other things are devolved, but the Bill leaves us with complete confusion. I suspect that this affects Ministers more than it affects me, because they are being asked to sort it out. Two completely different principles are being propounded by people who support the devolution settlement; they then ask a UK Minister to sort it out, but God help him if he sorts it out as he has—in a way that is not to the satisfaction of the Members from Wales. 
 I do not think that this is a perfect solution—I do not think that a perfect solution is possible—but the moment that the UK Minister proposes a solution that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and other hon. Members from Wales do not like, they ask for it to be reviewed to keep the existing arrangement in Wales, even though that goes beyond the devolution settlement. I bet the Minister would not be encouraged to tell the Welsh commissioner to keep his nose out of non-devolved affairs, although that would be a perfectly reasonable attitude to take. Some things are devolved matters and some are not. Surely, therefore, 
 it should be for a commissioner established by the UK Parliament to take account of reserved matters, and for a commissioner appointed by the National Assembly for Wales to take account of devolved matters, but that approach does not seem to be acceptable to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North either. 
 Meanwhile, Welsh Members of this Committee vote on matters that affect only England, and could therefore affect the outcome of a vote, although they have not as yet. We are in a position in which if we are not careful, the devolution settlement will continually be pushed and pushed, not in debates on the principles, which, as the Under-Secretary said, is where such debates should take place, but in debates on individual aspects of devolution, such as the implementation of particular policies where they affect the devolution settlement. 
 The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) says that we should legislate for what is happening, but fox hunting is happening and we do not seem to be too happy to legislate on that. 
 There has to be a hard-nosed approach to this matter, which says either, ''This is the devolution settlement, let's work within it,'' or, ''This is a UK Minister, let him put forward a solution, and let us accept it.'' Having said that, I like the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, that the commissioner—I do not think of him as the commissioner for England, but as the Children's Commissioner established by the UK Parliament—should be empowered to delegate matters to the commissioners in the other countries. That proposal seems to be entirely sensible, but it does not appear to have been put forward as an amendment to the Bill.

Julie Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. When amendments are grouped together as these are, how do we vote on a new clause if it is not the lead amendment?

Joe Benton: If it is not the lead amendment, we will first have to vote on the lead amendment. If you wish to press a new clause to a vote, the appropriate time to do so is when we come to it on the amendment paper. To which clause is is the hon. Lady referring?

Julie Morgan: New clause 27.

Joe Benton: I am informed that it will automatically be put to a vote, but not until we reach the new clauses.

Tim Loughton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Benton. We would like to have a separate vote on new clause 6. I presume that the same procedure will apply?

Joe Benton: Yes, indeed.

Don Touhig: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, for which I thank colleagues on all sides, although we may have disagreed, because that is what this place is about—scrutinising legislation put before it by the Executive.
 I will briefly comment on some of my colleagues' comments before moving on to the amendments and new clauses generally. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham started by talking about the devolution settlement, which brought to mind St. Paul on the road to Damascus. We always welcome a convert, particularly given that a Conservative speaking in favour of devolution is rather rare—as rare, in fact, as a Conservative in my constituency.

Tim Loughton: The Under-Secretary is being entirely disingenuous for the sake of a few cheap laughs, as he knows. Like the principle of a commissioner, the principle of devolution has become a reality, whether we agreed with it or not, and we are working with it. We do not want the way in which devolution works to be completely undermined because of the confusion in the Bill. That is an entirely consistent position.

Don Touhig: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is a little upset—I would not want to upset him for the world. However, I was not quite clear, when he quoted Members of the other place at the beginning of his remarks, whether he was in favour of extending the powers of the Welsh commissioner to look into reserved matters.

Tim Loughton: The whole purpose of our amendments is to make it clear where the buck stops—that is what I am trying to achieve. So far, the Under-Secretary has signally failed to explain where the buck stops.

Don Touhig: I will certainly say where the buck stops, but, even after that reply, I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman supports extending the powers of the Welsh commissioner to look into reserved matters. It is a perfectly simple question, but the hon. Gentleman is clearly unable to answer it.
 The important point to remember is that the Government amendments in no way dilute or diminish the powers of the Welsh commissioner or the commissioners in the other countries of the United Kingdom. In fact, in the specific terms of the present argument, their powers will remain untouched. 
 As regards the amendments that we have tabled on the powers of the English commissioner in reserved matters, the buck stops here—in the British Parliament. Ministers must come to the United Kingdom Parliament, where they are answerable on reserved matters, which are the responsibility of the Government in this place. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. 
 The hon. Gentleman went on to express concerns, which I perfectly understand, about cross-border issues, and I shall perhaps make some general remarks 
 about that. The Government's view, however, is that a child who wanted to take up an issue would go to the commissioner in the country where they were resident. That would be the case even if an issue arose when a Welsh child was on a day trip to England—or, conversely, an English child was on a day trip to Wales—and there was nothing to prevent the child from going to the commissioner in England, if that was appropriate. A child will go to whichever commissioner is responsible for the part of the United Kingdom in which they are resident at that time. 
 To underpin the point and address the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North in the Welsh context, I am trying to stress all the time that, as far as the Government are concerned, the Welsh commissioner will be the point of contact for children in Wales. If he then feels he should refer the matter on because it covers a reserved area, that is a matter for discussion between him and the English-plus commissioner. However, the child's first point of contact will be the commissioner in Wales.

Roger Williams: The Minister makes great play of the fact that he is not lessening the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, but he now says that if a child goes to the commissioner in Wales on a reserved matter, the commissioner will refer it to the commissioner in England. At the moment, however, the commissioner in Wales would deal with such matters himself, so the Under-Secretary must be lessening his powers.

Don Touhig: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not refer to matters that he deals with at the moment. As was said earlier in relation to the late Lord Williams of Mostyn and his amendment to the Care Standards Act 2000, the Children's Commissioner for Wales can look into any matter affecting a child in Wales. In practice, of course, if that matter fell within a reserved area, he would ask the Assembly or a Whitehall Minister to look into it because he would have no power to investigate it. He would also have the opportunity to ask the English commissioner to take a matter up if that was appropriate. However, that does not prevent him from carrying out an investigation and then, say, collaborating with his colleague, the English commissioner, and asking him to take it further. We are talking about an extension, not a diminution of his powers.

Hilton Dawson: I entirely accept the good sense of what my hon. Friend says, but is there not a—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o' clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.